Those actually aren't that good for your guy, you know. + 3 or less generally falls within the margin of error. They're pretty much a tie. The Bloomberg poll is skewed +6 Democrat among likelies. The Fox poll we've already discussed in other threads as being skewed. The +7 one I've never heard of, but I'd bet money it's heavily skewed.

Hey, answer me something. I checked out the Bloomberg one. Amongst all polled they say +5 would vote Obama if they voted, but among likelies they're +6. Forget about the over-sampling, what that means to me is they're saying likely Obama voters are more likely to make the trip to the voting both. Do you honestly believe that? Empty Chair is having trouble getting people out to his rallies. He couldn't fill the big stadium for his convention. They had to move to the little one. Weather concerns were a nonsense excuse. He has to make silly deals to his email list like send some of your wedding gift money our way, or have one meal less, and send the money to us. There's all kinds of indications the enthusiasm of 2008 is not there in 2012, yet we seem to be asked to believe it is actually higher.

So you're saying that all the polls that show Obama in the lead are skewed so some right wing hack unskews them and skews them in the opposite direction to show Willard leading and we're just supposed to believe it?..

The polls are not skewed , Willard is just losing.

I think it's more like the Right Wing was counting on low turn out and low enthusiasm this election because they know it's the only way republicans can win in the current political climate. Traditionally there is a much lower turn out during a mid term, so in 2010 the Tea Party had a field day and swept into the House , and now they believe that Democrats are just disappointed enough and lazy enough that they will sit at home rather than get out for Obama...

I hate to break the news but you and the right wing are wrong. From where I sit the enthusiasm is just as strong if not higher than it was in 2008. I believe that the right wing plan of passing strict voter ID laws, cutting off early voting times, and all the things they have done to suppress the Democratic Vote will backfire on them. See I call it the " Human Nature" factor, that I believe the Republican party failed to realize. It's just like when you tell a teenager not to do something, it only makes them want to do it more. Passing new Voter Laws to limit people from voting is basically telling people who are used to going out and voting that they can't vote. Telling a few million Democrats they have to jump through hoops to cast their vote only served to incite those people to get out and vote.

I have a friend in Iowa who has already cast his vote, and he tells me that enthusiasm on the first day of early voting there was higher than it was in 2008. Even better was that he said it was mostly Democrats who were out in droves getting in their votes while they had time.

The Democrats also have two things going for them that I consider very advantageous.
1: Obama has been building his ground game in most of the swing states since 2008... so he has twice the ground game Willard has pieced together. Case in point again, Iowa. Willard has something like 16 field offices in Iowa... Not bad for a normal campaign... However, Obama has like 96 field offices. Big advantage when it comes to getting out the vote.

2: We have a Former President who has a very high approval rating and who is highly popular all over the country actively campaigning for the President and his policies. Bill Clinton is a major advantage, especially considering that the Former Republican President wasn't even invited to the Republican Convention and doesn't seem to be welcome anywhere near the Romney campaign...

So no.. I don't really believe the Media when they claim there is an enthusiasm problem with Democrats. There's not very many in my area but the Democrats I do know are more than excited to Vote against Willard , just as excited as you are to vote against Obama.

__________________

You guys keep avoiding the question...
HOW are these polls supposedly being skewed?
The reality is that you guys don't want to admit that the Repubs actions are resulting in FEWER people who want to say "I am with Repubs". That's not the same thing as the polls being "skewed"...

And furthermore, I don't think you really want to rest your head on the "margin of error" response.
+3, assuming a +/- 3% margin of error, results in the overall being between 0% (which would be a tie at the extreme end) to Romney losing by 6 points (at the other side of the extreme end).

Plus, considering that the polls repeatedly show the same thing, that reduces the margin of error.


Not showing up at a rally is not the same thing as not showing up at the big event of election day.
If Obama came to my area to speak, I probably would not go to see him.
But I will be voting for him in November...

Why don't you take a look at another indicator...

Obama And Romney's Campaign Donations Visualized [INFOGRAPHIC]

And if you look at INDIVIDUAL contributions, Obama is beating the crap out of Romney...
Presidential Campaign Finance
Obama: $200 and under: $271,327,755
Romney: $200 and under: $58,456,968

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

It is really not a question of whether there is some gigantic "conspirc[cy]" to "willfully manipulate all of their polls."

Rather, it is a question of methodology.

If many polling organizations begin with the baseline assumption that the 2012 electorate is likely to resemble, rather closely, the 2008 electorate, one of their most fundamental assumptions is likely to be hugely flawed.

I seriously doubt that the percentage of the electorate that is black, Latino, or young (say, 18-29 years of age)--all Democratic client groups--is likely to be anywhere close to what it was four years ago.

The electorate will probably not be quite so congenial to Republican candidates as the midterm electorate was in 2010, either.

But I am guessing that it will look a bit more like the 2010 electorate than it will look like the 2008 electorate...

If the polling sample breaks out 40/60 Dem/Rep and the area being polled is 60/40 Dem/Rep, then the poll results are not going to be accurate. How hard is that to comprehend?? This has been the biggest flaw in the polling process - skewing the samples. But I'm giving you facts and truth again, so I know that I just confused you. Sorry, I hope you weren't doing anything important....

__________________
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

Leftists and very small children don't seem to be able to understand that the Government isn't there to "fix" the economy, anymore than a tick is there to fix your dog.~Oftencold

You know what?

It turns out you're right.

The PJ Tatler WE ARE THE 91%: Only 9% of Americans Cooperate with Pollsters

What these seemingly skewed polls actually prove is Republicans are less likely to do polls. Call a number of phones and +7 Democrat will consent to do the poll.

This does not surprise me. What did challenge credibility was when we were being told more Democrats were going to vote this election than in 2008. That one just did not make sense.

Redd got it right about 1980, but elections preceding and succeeding (Save maybe 1996) have seen no major polling bias in relation to the actual results.

__________________
"Bush tortured people, Obama just kills them."
---Noam Chomsky

Here's one reason I have trouble believing the Democrat turnout on election day is going to be as amazingly high as the polls suggest this election day...

Take Ohio for example. In Ohio the Washington Post poll over-sampled Democrats by 7.

Now look at this...


But what's happening at Obama rallies is they have to claim they're intentionally keeping turnout low this year.

Obama campaign spokeswoman claims low crowd turnout at rallies is ?by design? The Greenroom

And if you believe the rally turnout is low, because Dems want it that way, well...

Somebody has to start spreading the meme telling Republicans to start agreeing to do the poll when they sit down to dinner after hard day's work, and get the phone call.

If you could comprehend what I am saying, you would see that I understand WHY you think it is wrong.
The question is HOW the polling process is being skewed?

For example, do the pollsters have phone numbers of Democrats which they favor?
Are Republicans getting confused on the questions and saying "Obama / Democrat" when they actually mean Romney / Republican?

WHAT PROCESS is being implemented in the STANDARD polling procedure that is supposedly "skewing" the results?

I mean, it's easy for some guy picking up a rifle to claim "the gun shoots to the left" because he doesn't get the results he wants. And that is EXACTLY what you're doing.
But the REAL question is can you demonstrate the gun is flawed by its design / physical construct, or can you recognize the person making the claim is just making excuses?


You haven't given me any facts, as usual.
In fact, I can't help but notice that you aren't throwing out your b.s. Wisconsin Walker vote claims, probably because I have corrected you one too many times on your stupid claims on that one.

You confuse CLAIMS with FACTS.
You CLAIMING that we should have more Republicans in the polls is not the same thing as PROVING that there are actually more Republicans out there.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

ROFLMAO!
You guys keep making up new excuses when you get a glimmer of something to found a new HYPOTHESIS on...

Based on this claim, we should be able to go back to previuos polls / elections and find the same consistent bias, right?
But you cannot do that, can you...


Why don't you take a look at another indicator...

Obama And Romney's Campaign Donations Visualized [INFOGRAPHIC]

And if you look at INDIVIDUAL contributions, Obama is beating the crap out of Romney...
Presidential Campaign Finance
Obama: $200 and under: $271,327,755
Romney: $200 and under: $58,456,968

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein